John Reid’s Agenda

Come on then, Reid, you big girl’s blouse. Come on and show us what you’ve got. Get out of that BBC studio and do something really brave, for a change. I don’t know about you, but I am getting a bit fed up of hearing the Home Secretary telling us how tough he is.

According to his own propaganda, Dr John Reid is the kind of guy who would knock you down for looking at his girl the wrong way in the pub. He acts like a man with “love” tattooed on a bicep and a steel plate in his head, and a pitbull that runs up and sniffs you very meaningfully indeed.

I imagine that when people meet him after closing time on a pavement in Glasgee, they look at his working jaw and his mad ice-blue eyes, and they think yikes. And that is what they are supposed to think. In a Labour Party increasingly dominated by superannuated lecturers and wonks and Milibands, Reid still exudes something of the smell of spilt beer.

He sounds tough, acts tough, looks tough. But as to whether he really is tough, my friends, I am afraid he makes overcooked tagliatelle look positively rigid. Every day we hear of some new ferocious Reid-inspired “crackdown”. He’s not just going to fine noisy neighbours; he’s not just going to give them Asbos. Tough-guy Reid is going to kick them out of their homes!

Tremendous, eh, says everyone who suffers from a noisy neighbour – until they realise that any such action would be immediately overturned in the courts as a breach of the culprit’s right to a “family life”.

OK, snarls Reid, well we’re going to crack down on all these immigrants, you watch us. We’re gonna have quotas for the Romanians and the Bulgarians. Except that even the most rabid Sun reader knows that under basic EU law Mr Reid cannot stop Romanians and Bulgarians from coming here, and that the Government has admitted that it has not the faintest idea how many illegals there are already, and no one has yet explained what on earth these new border police will do, no matter how smart their uniforms, that should not be done already by the existing border force.

Hmmm, sniffs Reid, and he snuffles around for something else to get his attack-dog teeth into. Well, what about Muslim terrorists? he yelps. We’re going to kick them out. We’re going to lock them up without trial – and never mind the protests from all those sissy lawyers. Well, it is true that 15 terrorist suspects have been detained without trial under the new Control Orders; but you get the feeling the Government can’t care that much about the problem, because two of them have simply vanished back into the undergrowth, and when Mr Reid was invited to share their names with the public – or even a rough description of what they looked like, so we could protect ourselves from these monsters – tough-guy Reid said he was very sorry but that would be a violation of their human rights.

The reality is that Mr Reid cares much less about action than the appearance of action. That is why we are subjected to this endless barrage of initiatives and this constant droning about the menace to our society. The purpose of all this new legislation is not to make it easier to combat the threat of terrorism, because the statute book already bristles with laws enabling the police to tap, bug, investigate, detain and do just about anything they please.

All these wearisomely authoritarian initiatives – they are nothing to do with solving the problems in hand, and everything to do with politics.

The objective is to frame a Bill which any sensible opposition would be bound to resist, at least in part – and then for tough-guy Reid to go on the telly and fix the public with his ex-commie stare, and accuse the Tories of failing to give him the powers he needs.

You would have thought that if Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller is right, and there are 30 deadly conspiracies already known to the security forces, that the obvious thing would be to round up the suspects, charge them and put them on trial. But oh no: rather than more arrests, Mr Reid would far rather have more laws, and laws give an opportunity for political point-scoring.

Yesterday the Queen announced that the Government will press ahead with ID cards, on the grounds that they would help in the war on terror. But ID cards would have made not the faintest difference to the July 7 bombings, and an ID card would certainly not have saved poor Jean Charles de Menezes from being shot, not least since he was Brazilian and therefore not entitled to one.

What’s the point of this plastic poll tax, this invitation to forgery, this new burden and irritation for millions of innocent and law-abiding citizens? The point is that the Tories will oppose it, and Reid will be able to prance about, champing his jaw, and claiming that he is therefore the toughest guy in town.

And one cannot help feeling, by the way, that half Blair’s purpose in this new raft of Home Office laws is to push Mr Reid to the centre of our national stage, so that he is well placed to take on Gordon Brown. Well, here is how John Reid could prove that he was really tough. Here is the bravest thing he could possibly say. He should say that the real problem in our society, and the reason we have so many disaffected and alienated Muslim youths, is that for a generation he and people like him supported the disastrous multicultural agenda. The reason that 40 per cent of British Muslims would like some form of Sharia law in this country is that the Left has traditionally deprecated British institutions and even the teaching of English.

A truly brave John Reid would now publicly grovel to Ray Honeyford, the Bradford head who called for teaching in English and who was vilified and persecuted by the Left. And if he was really tough, Reid would stop pussyfooting and go public. Come on, you great quivering jelly of indecision. Come on if you think you’re hard enough.

Well written. Any fool who’s seen Boris menacingly cradling that paper weight on WebCameron knows that he could take Reid. 😉

I have to say, all the fuss about how many conservatives went to Eton, yet we have Neanderthals like Reid and Prescott in the cabinet? Give me old etonians in office any day, brains are what’s important in politics, not the perception of brawn.

I see to remember the smoking thing being a free vote, and roughly the same proportion voted for the motion as there are non-smokers.

Rather than labour v conservative this ban was always non-smokers v smokers. I also remember Chris Hulne on Question Time a few weeks back having a go at some guy in the audience during the veil debate.

The guy had asked some Muslim women in the audience if the majority decided they didn’t want people wearing veils would they remove them? Hulne labasted the guy saying what a proud tradition we have in Britian of sticking up for minority rights.

The hypocrite has voted 99% in favour of a complete ban according to publicwhip.

Though, to be fair to our otherwise useless Home Secretary, Boris, he did manage to have a nurse – yes, that’s right – A NURSE – searched under Section 44 of his iniquitous Terrorism Act for the heinous crime of saying “Boo!” as Blair’s car passed on the way to the opening of Parliament.

As nurses are presumably now Reid’s new Public Enemy Number One, there is clearly no hope of freedom or justice for any of us in this nulabia police state – until we, the electorate, wipe the slate clean of this paranoid nulab rabble.

Too right, Boris. Multiculturalism is as divisive as it is misguided. It has left a void at our national heart and widened all the rifts that it was supposed to heal. I hope the forthcoming Conservative government has the nerve to bury this socialist paen to non-judgementalism, and unite us behind some proud shared values a little more substantial than New Labour’s empty obsession with diversity.

Tayles – glad to see you’ve come here. Your contributions on the other forum have been nothing short of superb (not least because you’re always agreeing with me).

What is this NuLab obsession with diversity? It seems that nothing is worth a light to them unless it is, as they fondly put it, “rich in diversity”. It’s a hoorah word, hard to challenge and therefore a marvellous way of keeping thousands of people with useless degrees in the business of maintaining it and of guaranteeing that many more thousands who are drawn in to the “diversity” programme will for ever vote Lab in gratitude. Neat.

We’ve had institutional racism. I call the new phenomenon “institutional diversity”.

Thanks Paul. I think that diversity is an old socialist device, designed to prevent those who don’t represent the majority view from being ‘oppressed’. It’s a sham, of course. NuLab are full of ideas about how we should live – relating to behaviour and lifestyle rather than belief – and where possible they criminalise opposing views. Fox hunters are a minority, after all.

What diversity and multiculturalism are really about are extending the Leftist obsession with turning values on their head in order to give those with all the power (ie non-victim groups) a hard time.

Of course, there’s no reason why, as a nation, you can’t espouse a certain set of values. The French do it, and although they have at race problems, they have a deep notion of what it means to be French.

I second Boris’ comments on ‘diversity’ – Some years ago I saw a BNP badge which, around a union flag, bore the motto “Don’t unpack, you’re going back!” Which to me epitomises the unspoken spirit of diversity: Don’t try and fit in, or adapt to our way of life, because you never will.

‘Diversity’, as defined in Labours Equality Act 2006, means ‘the fact that individuals are different’. Their other buzzword, ‘equality’ is defined in the same Act as ‘equality between individuals’.

You’ll be pleased to know there is going to be a new Commission for Equality and Human Rights. The Act states

‘The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part–
(a) promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity,
(b) encourage good practice in relation to equality and diversity,’

So there you have it, a new thought police to make sure we all understand how important it is that everyone is different but yet equal.

Exactly what ‘good practice’ is remains to be seen. I’m sure the new commission will be ‘institutionally diverse’ enough to work that one out for us.

Tayles – good to see your comments, I especially liked “Multiculturalism is as divisive as it is misguided”

StevenL – full marks for exposing the governments spin: “‘Diversity’, as defined in Labours Equality Act 2006, means ‘the fact that individuals are different’. Their other buzzword, ‘equality’ is defined in the same Act as ‘equality between individuals'”

Captian Badger – good to see your comment, where do you stand on the issue?

I think political encouragement of cultural ghettoisation is one of the most cynical tricks anyone could play on new arrivals to our shores. Telling them they don’t need to fit in because they’re ‘seperate but equal’ then denying them access to good schools and hence further opportunity in later life by moving away from selection by ability to selection by income virtually guarantees the creation of a disenfranchised underclass.

I guess NuLabour decided if they were actaully successful in creating a ‘fairer’ society, they’d do themselves out of future work. It’s the only justification I can think of for their methodical destruction of the mechanisms of social and economic mobility.

I’m a non smoker and value the fact that I will soon be able to go out more without having to risk a premature death so someone else has the right to choose. It was a free vote and the smokers lost it, high time the non-smokers could go places without risking cancer from passive smoking anyway.

If you “want to go out more without risking a premature death” best to look both ways when crossing the road. There’s no such thing as cancer from “passive smoking”. Smelly clothes and a cough isn’t cancer.

Idlex, on the contrary, for a long time I’ve advocated having separate smoking rooms in some places. The problem I have always had has been that their rarely is separation so everyone has to put up with smoke on behalf of those who want it.

Jeff, where is the evidence that you can’t get Cancer from passive smoking? All the information I have seen says that exposure to smoke increases the risk of both lung cancer and heart disease.

Having read Idlex’s link I see some sources that say there is little to no risk, however that does not cover the other health implications that non smokers have for years put up with to appease other peoples habits.

…high time the non-smokers could go places without risking cancer from passive smoking anyway.

You drive and fly, I imagine, so you don’t give a damn about showering your fellow humanity with carcinogens in the process. What hypocricy.

That suggests to me that it’s high you lot of non-smoking freeloaders paid your own taxes.

So, I’ve now stopped paying £30 odd week more tax than non-smokers, I’m getting my ciggies from overseas, and you can whistle for all that fat tax you were getting at my expense. If the majority of smokers do likewise, there’ll be an £8-9 billion black hole in tax revenues – which all of you non-smokers will have to compensate for:)

Speak to me nicely, grovel a bit, and I might relent. Otherwise, I’ve no sympathy for you.

Idlex, why don’t you go back and edit that mile-long sentence? It’s making some very good arguments hard to read. Even “Pete” may think twice if he read them properly, although I fear he is yet another la-la fingers-in-ear fag extinguisher.

Paul D , I usually find the contributions of Tayles tremendous but on those occasions he disagrees with me , of dubious quality . There is a gold standard behind these judgements that I would recommend we all attend to .

Boris , who I have just watched on question time performing brilliantly , reiterated the point that Reid is posturing by framing a law that will be resisted on Libertarian ground, so as to appear to be tougher on Terrorism, than thou .
This is typical of the sophisticated news handling that Nu Lab have made the signature of their government . In this case they are appearing the opposite of what they are . From the Blackpool conference onwards ,they have been a party withoutthe rudder of principle. As a result , the natural tendency for bureaucrats to want more power , for interest groups to want more tax money, and for politicians to want more laws has drifted calamitously. This is what the electorate have had enough of .
They must therefore appear decisive but it is sham . Most of the queens speech initiatives have no chance of becoming law,and exist for pantomimic effect. Reid ,( between the lines), is the worst offender .

There is an interesting code going on here . Nick Griffin has just been discovered ( oh my goodness) to be racist , or not, because he says Muslims are evil people intent on no good . We are , apparently , in such imminent peril that we must be bunged in chokey , at the whim of plod , in case we have bombs about our person. Meanwhile, further laws are being framed to deny me the right to say this is all the fault of Islam with its encouragement to ,”find the faithless and slay them”.
It is absolutely no coincidence that Boris mentions the telling fact about the number of Muslims who believe in Sharia law . The dove Muslim majority is largely a myth.

Behind all of this is the revolt of the white working class against labour and often into the hands of the BNP . The labour front bench have over the last two months made endless anti Islamic comments , ( quite rightly ) for the benefit of this audience , but they dare not take on their multicultural support .
So , despite the official abandonment of catastrophic multicultural policy the labour party ,hugely in the thrall of minority pressure groups , cannot act . As Boris points out there will be no compulsory English or cultural, induction of any sort.. No move to value the working people of this country to won two world wars for us , they will continue to be betrayed . Labours answer is to threaten to lock everyone up and to drag out M15 and Plod to back up their need to be tough .As if they were immune to political pressure. I don’t think.

Its birthday and Christmas for me . News lead legislative initiatives , coded racism ( with no real help on immigration and housing), Braun Haus fire emergency shouting and illiberal statist bullying. Well done Boris well done indeed !You are the smiling cavalier who ,with a laugh and a swagger, impales the NuLab deceit time and time again.

What a fine cabinet minister you will be. Personally I hope to see you ,as Deputy Prime Minister ,Lancelot to Cameron`s Arthur in the new Camelot of the Conservative Administration.

Pete… Re “passive smoking”. One of the biggest studies on passive smoking ever done was by the World Health Organisation in 1998. It only found *one* statistically-significant result (and that not very strongly so) which was for children exposed to tobacco smoke in early life – who were found to have less prevalence of “smoking-related” illness as adults. Or, to put it another way, “passive smoking” was actually beneficial! It’s almost impossible to find the report nowadays as, not having produced the “correct” result, it was buried PDQ.. But not before “The Telegraph” had published it!

Boris’s finest moment on Question Time last night was his reaction to the £3,750-a-head compensation of heroin addicts who did cold turkey in prison: “Completely nuts”.

I was watching with some friends and we all exploded with laughter – not in mockery, but a spontaneous outburst of relief that one politician is prepared to talk unequivocal common sense.

A large number of the audience seemed to feel the same way, as does everyone I speak to, without exception.

One drippy woman whined that addiction is an illness and a cancer patient would not be treated like that, failing to recognise that no-one chooses to get cancer, or that cancer patients tend not to leave a trail of misery among (uncompensated) victims they have burgled and mugged. Other than her – and Kilroy-Silk for some reason – everyone seemed to disapprove of these awards. Even the Minister responsible could not bring himself to support them personally. His justification for the instant payout was to avoid the high legal costs of a court hearing which would probably have led to the same outcome.

Nearly a million quid’s worth, and that’s before every other ex-con junkie sees what has happened and holds out his hand for a bung. What now? Heavy drinkers demanding cash because they weren’t served palliative gin and tonics in prison?

Given that a vast proportion of the population thinks compensation is barmy, how come it has been paid? I thought we live in a democracy where the will of the majority prevails. Silly me.

Newmania – am with you totally. Do you think Cameron will be PM? What did you think of Bliars retort to Cameron in the House?

PaulD – yes, agree but Kilroy-silk did agree in the end (you had to hang in there and not lose the will to live while he was speaking) as I understood him to say that if they give the prisoners compensation for illness, they should give cancer patients the drugs currently denied them too.

Boris was indeed brilliant on QT – my favourite bit was when he said something like ‘Blair handing over to Brown is rather less democratically accountable than from Claudius to Nero’ I thought Boris’s comments on terror were refreshing.

I’ll be honest, I really don’t car what happens with smokers getting a place to smoke. Yes it would be nice for them, but as I’m not one I see no reason to take an active interest in it just like for years smokers weren’t bothered about the rest of us.

PaulD – yes I thought Kilroy was trying to be all things to all people; trying very hard to be liked (and went head to head to head with Boz at one point – mistake) but you can dowload highlights of the prog from the QT website.

Tayles – thanks for reminding me about the submarine, that was v.funny.

Did anyone notice the first web rage incident in the ES this evening.Some body travelled hundreds of miles with an axe because of some virtual slight. Bet Mel is worried you know how aggressive she can be (?)

Lots of talk about smoking. The only problem was bad filtration and manners, but that was forgotten in the stampede to ignore minority rights. To paraphrase Voltaire: I disagree with what you smoke but I will defend, to my death, your right to smoke it.
Back to Reid – the Mr Fix-it who doesn’t. What’s his real purpose? There are still some in Labour who are – heaven forbid – socialists. Prescott used to appease them but they needed a stand-by. Only thing is, he’s having to perform now … if he isn’t looking for the submarine.

I actually disagree. I don’t think NuLabour are socialists. Sure, they’re centrist, statist power freaks, but they also kowtow to the rich, and enoble their political allies and benefactors. They have created a disenfranchised underclass, have tried to abolish parliament in favour of direct rule, and want to reduce the middle classes to peonage. I think they’re feudalist.

Tony Blair is ‘too posh’ for Sedgefield but they keep on electing him.

I wonder how much ‘class’ has to do with politics these days. From what I’ve seen politcal allegience seems to have more to do with geography than class.

As for being posh, I don’t think it stops people relating to not-so-posh people at all. Some people have charisma, some don’t. It’s more a question of whether you can ‘pull off’ being posh if you ask me.

K -I wrote some rather good essays about the problems faced by Lord Liverpool years ago . So what.
The Conservative party Shadow cabinet conspicuously lacks faces and voices representing a large part of its party support . Boris cannot fill that gap .

What strikes me is that when Tony Blair had his clause four moment he was pushing his finger into a rotten fruit . There was no belief at all in the tenets of Socialism which had been shown to have failed in every way . The same cannot be aid for Neo Con Conservatism which is , by contrast the lively new area of journalism and academia , especially coming from America. David Cameron is under pressure not only form the traditional right , tending towards UKIP but a separate low tax agenda for free market thinkers ( Sorry to see old Milton pop off this week) . I am sympathetic to both myself . Neither are remotely out of steam.

Cameron appears likely to be trustworthy on the Constitution , but is talking a load of manure on tax . Well… he may be wise .My point is that Cameron cannot claim to be the future the way Tony Blair did in Nu Lab and internal opposition is going nowhere . New member so the party are attracted by freethinking , market ideas , not Liberals in Blue hats. I think Cameron needs to broaden his constituency to the right ,we shall see.
Meanwhile I have 4000 leaflets to get delivered so I may be to busy doing to be chatting for a while. Thrilling stuff about parking and local stuff , which in truth , I like

I wonder how much ‘class’ has to do with politics these days.
Stevey;
Class is more important than ever because class divisions have widened under Nu lab. Nu Lab are well aware of this hence all their tough talk on Muslims . They have lost a lot of their working class support , having failed to protect their communities from immigrant hoards. The fact that Nu Lab are hated by their heartland vote , who see no real option , is clearly shown by what has happened in Scotland . SNPs miraculous progress is a lot to do with the weakness of Labour in this client area.
Scotland is crucial . I see English votes in Westminster as inevitable and preferable to another parliament .

Politics is still very tribal and sacramental , personally I prefer it that way .

I `m going to try a small rebuttal
to the lady`s sub Penelope Shuttle
Boris may be a wit and all that
But face it he`s getting incredibly fat

If you ran around him for exercise
You might not make it past his thighs
Half way there , you’d hit the crunch
And probably have to stop for lunch

I `ve seen him up close , and sad to say
The plastic surgeon has had his way
His face quack was a well known German
Who pulled the flesh up like a turban
Into the haystack , the colour of cheese
He scratches away as if he had fleas
At the mound of rolled up cheek and jowl
Hadn’t you noticed
It stands out mile

Also he’s really surprisingly short
When I met him I though that mel had bought
A Boris puppet to sit on ones knee
And say er and um even as he

His skin is yellow and his teeth are blue
His tie simply never knows what to do
His posture low his and his hygiene scant
Oh good lord, I thought, it’s a mendicant

Anthony North – interesting comments and interesting blog too! For a NuLab man with socialist politics, Jon Cruddas might be to your liking, and he’s tipped for deputy leader too I think.

Newmania – I’m with CaptainBadger, Steven_L and k on this one, sorry. But I agree with your statement that “Cameron cannot claim to be the future the way Tony Blair did in Nu Lab” as there seemed to be widespread almost evangelical support for NuTony in 97. It is Cameron’s leadership skills that must win the day. (A fractured party cannot win elections) I agree that “SNPs miraculous progress is a lot to do with the weakness of Labour” and these voters need a new political home to go to. Blair’s success was partly because of the general need for change, there is one again.

Please be our new Mac – where poetry flowed with ease and melted our hearts.

We need you as our resident POET to express in verse what is happening in our lives…

Please do keep your wonderful verse coming….You are a natural – and I didn’t even know it when we met recently.

How about some lines about coping with the difficult and high pressure Christmas season where commercial interests are riding high…
my feeling is that we should “forget presents..” although I’m sounding far too Stoogish by saying that….what do you think?

Melissa,
Have you seen oxfams gift ideas. They are quite a good way to get away from the commercialism of christams as it lets you buy a “gift” for a developing country on behalf of you chosen person. You can buy lots of different things such as trees, textbooks, school, dinners, goats etc.

[Ed as in Melissa: Cheers K great idea and one to take on board given the creeping commercialisation infecting every store at the moment]

If anyone does that to me they are off my list forever and I will not be sharing eggnog with them. I recall Mz K that you also wanted to bung Jodie Marsh into the slammer for dressing provocatively . Do I detect something of a puritanical theme?
I hope you find the time to be irresponsible greedy and drunk as well. That is after all the spirit of Christmas. “That spoonful of Brandy butter could have saved a village!!” ” Those golf clubs could have been a set of text books “” that tinsel could have been recycled and made into an irrigation system “……what a swell party it was.
One of the problems with Christianity (one of the many) is its tendency to glorify denial not to say misery. Odd how history repeats itself isn’t it weird religions turn up from the East and before you they change the name of our festivals to accommodate these alien ways .From Winter Blowout to Christmas to Winterval .Why not return to the tradition of pagan feast frolic and libation.

After all its pretty hard to fall from a religion that is itself supine so I see little to lose.

Is New Labour Socialist, Feudalist, etc? The truth may be that you can find whatever you look for in New Labour. This could mean it’s shallow, or maybe it’s got a split personality, and I don’t mean the Blair/Brown fiasco. And if it’s got personality problems, it might be psychotic.
Worrying indeed, but if you look closely at its vacuousness and spin, a possible reality dawns. New Labour is the first postmodern government.Image and ideals are merging into a cultural and political cauldron. And as Picasso proved, the postmodern is mad.
Class can be redefined in postmodern politics. Is Boris too posh? Maybe and maybe not. Class can be important or not important at all. It depends entirely on the interpretation. It’s a mad world where you can no longer decide whether Boris is too posh or he isn’t.
Cameron in the best Conservative hope for breaking this postmodern madness. He is a good weapon, throwing back at New Labour their own personality. But whether he would then make a good Prime Minister, I don’t know. Do we want more of the same, or should proper politics resume?
Cameron’s dislike of adversarial politics suggests it might not. But adversarial politics is vital for getting the issues across. Without it, we’re totally centre ground, which is , really the route to a One Ideology State.
Still, has anyone noticed Cameron has the same initials as the new Bond? Try turning his adversaries – New Labour – into Bond villains. It’s fun. And worryingly postmodern.

Newmania,
HEY, it is a really good idea-have a look at the homepage. Ok so I would probably not buy them for my family (or at least I would buy them other things too), but they are brillant for friends and work collegues. Each year my friends and I buy each other pretty useless gifts that we do not ever use again, so this year we are going to buy each other oxfam gifts.

Seems to me, and I’m not going to win any freinds here, that ‘real’ socialism (provision of good social housing, health, and education) actually did a lot of good for the country. So much indeed, that there was a danger we would all become middle class, and no longer need them.

Hence, we’re seeing none of that “enable social and economic mobility” rubbish from NuLabour. The working classes sink themselves into penury scraping together money to buy overpriced (according to the Bank anyway) hovels on, what is it now, 52 year mortgages, leaving themselves no resources to invest in their children, who unsurprisingly fail to achieve.

(Actually, I find Tesco selling extra long term mortgages deeply disturbing: “I sold my soul to the company store” springs unbidden to mind.)

To stay in the public eye, and keep electable, NuLabour needs ‘issues’ and I think they’re doing a pretty bang up job of creating a pile of them for future governments to resolve.

Fortunately, Blair is held in such loathing by the electorate that NuLabour must replace him, and he’s the only one of ’em who can keep a straight face whilst peddling their amoral and divisive policies. Not before time.

Cap – No I agree more or less I am still pro Union whithin limits . Socilism cannot of course actually create wealth or at least did not during the period you refer to . It can redress Social wrongs though .
It has little ffurther use in this country

Saying socialism has little further use is like saying the polio vaccine has little further use – through it’s application we have pretty much eradicated the ill it sought to cause, but we must remain vigilant lest they return.

What ticks me off about NuLabour is they are going hell for leather re-introducing those ills. For a centre right party to succeed, they must put the socio-economic ladders of education & public health back. Only by continuously ‘vaccinating’ society against the ills which led to socialist government can we prevent it’s return. We need socialists as medaeval courts needed jesters, to keep our government mindful of the state of all it’s citizens. I think Tony Benn is great, he has some very clear & honest views on the nature of democracy and accountability. I just wouldn’t want him or anyone like him running the country. Give him a suit of mottley & a pigs bladder on a stick & let him get on with it.

By ‘public health’ I don’t mean a mantra driven shovelling of money into the NHS, I mean the providing fundamentals of good health through proper nutrition and strenuous physical activity through competetive sports. The NHS serves the same purpose as the seatbelts in your car – Nice to have if you need them, but much better & cheaper to not have an accident in the first place.

Newmania – “One of the problems with Christianity (one of the many) is its tendency to glorify denial not to say misery” yep and (I must say I just love your comments) at least you do remind up that Christmas is NOT winterval but the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Captain Badger – no friends? Not so, we are all friends here and I greatly enjoy reading your comments, you make interesting and valuable points. But I must pick you up on one point – that of a socialist politician. I say again that I believe Jon Cruddas fits the bill. He represents an area in East London that cries out for socialist solutions. His area is not affluent and I believe is the sink hole for many asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. He is at the coal face of many of the problems this government’s innadequacy and utter incompetance has created yet he remains a Labour politician, still crying out for old fashioned socialist solutions he has the intelligence to fit to modern problems. Sadly he’s not in the running for leader. Sadly neither is Boris. With Cruddas on the left and Boris on the right you would see adversarial politics, a break to the political deadlock and real solutions for this country. But with the Labour leadership in the air, as they say in Stingray – anything can happen in the next half hour.

“Good God! How dare Gordon Brown allow 60,000 foreigners to escape paying tax on income and investments held abroad while screwing every last penny out of the working English?”

NuLabour kowtows to the super – rich. Remember them letting Madonna change a right of way over her Scottish estate so she didn’t have to look at hordes of hikers using a centuries old byeway? Hope Bliar was in the cash for peerages affair up to his neck. Seven years in Dartmoor sounds about right.

I see cap feels that Socialism remains on the menu if not the table . By Socialism I mean State control of production distribution and exchange and tending towards that arrangement . Take Council housing for example . After the war there was a need for housing that the private sector was not going to supply .In fact the country , economically, remained at war until the 60s . There was a great classlessness compared to today and a sense of community . “Our ” country providing for us .
Since then perhaps the most distinctive feature of the domestic economy has been the development of financial services ie mortgages and the spread of property ownership. Also entry into the housing supply market is exceedingly easy .
There is a double hidden tax in that everyone paying a mortgage creates a housing market , most of the value is the location for which local authorities ( and T and C Planning) and that value is retained by the state . It is , in effect redistributed via public housing though community development requirements . States have raise revenue by ownership of many things salt monopolies , gambling monopolies and so on but the monopoly ( in this case of planning ) is always at the expense of the citizens.
We can see that the motive and justification for state subsidised housing has faded considerably and if you want to look at where Socialism in Britain is today this is the best place to look . Housing policy ,IMHO is in fact the key issue in real politics .

At this time why should that part of the country who struggle to pay huge mortgages additionally provide subsidised and free housing to others because they “need it” ?. Allocation is usually on a points basis according to “neediness”. Typically this will involve fatherless children , poverty and so on. Generally rents will also be part of benefits payments. It is very clear both the effect this will have on choices and the need it creates for itself .

( By the way this is by no means lost on the Labour Party who depend on this vote in the inner cities and will never let these people escape dependency )

There is no end to demand for free or subsidised anything . It fuels immigration , now largely of family members from Pakistan and Bangladesh It sucks social problems into areas where public money is available . And creates , therefore entire benefits cultures. It has all but destroyed the working class .Older people , who have had council houses since the 60s and would not dream of acquiring children for the purpose are surrounded with a new sort of underclass that terrifies them . Look a the bars on the door and listen t the scared voice when you deliver leaflets..

Socialist hate leaseholders for this reason. In their unreconstructed minds the world is full of stuff and so some of it must be “ours”. the state acts as a guarantor and protector of “our” inheritance and stops greedy capitalists who might wish to acquire . To sell of the is asset is to sell of “our ” birthright”.

This vision has become a lie . Parts of it were valid I think , certainly in the 19th century and beyond , but now the attempt to retain it in the face of private ownership and the importance of income far exceeding assets is disastrous . When you think Socialism is dead remember that subsidised housing is being increased despite abundant evidence that it is creating endless problems . I don’t say the solution is simple , I do not want anyone on the street . David Cameron has promised a new effort to extend private ownership via rental mortgages and this is greatly encouraging.

There are many ways in which the state must continue to provide a safety net and enable people to overcome social exclusion but the husk of Socialism that has outlived its environment and moral raison d`etre is a great evil .

This is the test for whether Socialism is needed or not .The statement ,”THE WORLD IS FULL OF STUFF SO SOME OF IT MUST BE FOR ME” . I think there have been times when this was a very reasonable view . It isn’t now .Entry into opportunity is vital to retain the moral right of Conservatism . High spending on Education and early intervention and subsequent freedom to fail is implied by this view . I would always want a role for the unions myself as a balance against capital and government.

This is the sense in which Socialism is an evil in this country and there’s no harm is reminding ourselves that a supposedly discredited political belief still dominates much of our lives.

Me and ‘er were agog. The Oxfam catalogue is indistinguishable from the pile of junk exhorting us to spend more, more, more at Christmas.

It’s an extremely clever marketing exercise using the same glossy techniques as Lakeland, Matalan, Early Learning Centre (“ELC” – presumably the words are too long) and others that have arrived over the last few days.

Example: PEOPLE POWER PACK. Cast your vote for people power and give a voice to poor communities around the world. It gives them the clout to improve their daily lives, and confidence to make decisions on local issues and lobby those in authority for change. £60″

I take my hat off to Oxfam for this clever marketing idea. Buy democracy in some African state riddled with corruption from top to bottom for only £60!

And another: 10 CHANGE MAKER KITS. Changing attitudes is the first vital step in ending violence against women. Our ‘change makers’ are working hard to influence groups, communities and societies all over the world. Kit out 10 change makers with training and promotional materials to help them stop the violence. £20.

Are we just parsimonious cynics? Are we concerned that a big chunk of any money we give will be spent on marketing and administration, not to mention the chances of it ending up in the pocket of some local merchant?

Whichever way, it left both of us feeling bewildered and depressed.

You can’t fault Oxfam for trying, but the contrast between the slick presentation and the grinding poverty endemic in these countries served only to reinforce the hopelessness of it all.

I agree, the only thing the third world needs from us is less guns. Whilst you can buy an AK47 for 50 bucks, all the liberal handwringing in the world won’t make a difference.

Newmania, broadly with you. Surprised you didn’t touch on idiot McBroons pillage of the pensions system leading to the housing boom (it’s the only way to save without being visibly taxed) – I feel social housing is best provided by housing associations, but weaknesses in our letting laws make getting rid of bad tenants a virtual impossibilty. They know their rights, and have no interest in anyone elses.

Newmania – hear hear. Your comments on the socialist notion of entitlement brings to mind a quote from Ayn Rand: “They proclaim that every man is entitled to exist without labour and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his minimum sustenance, his food, his clothes, his shelter, with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright. To receive it, from whom?”

It is hard to know if you actually get to read the contributions on this blog, and even harder to discern whether, the comments actually provoke any thoughts, and or challenge, and or get you to re-examine your weltanschauung? However for what it is worth here it goes.

Current cognitive dissonance gripping ‘Emily’, and her minions (as so colourfully denoted by you) , has resulted in an almost bizarre neo reality at the expense of actualities. In this make believe world, limited people, find limitless reach, limitless power, and limitless appetites for change, based on their unlimited intellectual capacities!!!

However, these snarling poodles, having found the helpful tool for any dictatorship in the guise of our parliament, have not been checked, and or even so much as barked back at, which has only served to convince these of their ability to have won the day, to the extent, which these days, the swaggering ‘Emily’ not only ‘walks’ tough (ever noticed the arms slung wide?) but then issuing ‘plunking fist’ threats, ‘talks’ tough too. In fact ask John Bolton, and find out how terrified he was? (no poodle can ever be a rottweiler, going missing, oh the irony)

Which brings us to you and yours Boris. I know it is too much to ask one man to shoulder all the responsibility, but we all are ‘one man’ each, Boris, which brings us all crashing into painful actuality; we have become collaborators in chaos.

The low intensity civil war going on in our towns, and cities, we all have come to accept as crime. Is addressed by the nostrums of the apothecary from Glasgow, and his potions of remedy, all but chants, and prayers. Notwithstanding, the nostrum not working the day before, the new nostrum is proscribed anyway, albeit in new-speak, new location, and with the same telegenic backdrop.

However, how has this been checked? Who so ever challenged the mia culpa routine, played out, for the benefit of neo realities? Who is on record challenging the burgeoning prison population, that is spilling out into the make shift tented camps, and floating platforms?

Let him who has not sinned to cast the first, principle proving to be the bitch. Which then brings about the continuing shadow theatre we all have come to accept as the price to pay, for the incompetence of monumental proportions, that has perpetuated our public affairs.

So far you have swiped at the number of terrorists that evidently are crawling around, and have us all in their cross hairs, but only to validate the current wave of scaremongering, and deride the shortcomings of the fear-mongers. Hence, the questionable metamorphosis of a turban clad rifle touting cave dweller in some far flung lands, to the No enemy of the Planet, never has made it to any kind of verbal transactions in our parliament, now after six years. In the same period the parliament has been fortified to stop it from falling into the wrong hands, in case there ever could ensue a sensible debate, and or start for a healthy competition of ideas. Why tamper with yea olde nostrums? Harrumph,,,,,,,, eyes have it!

You skirt around the issue of the disaffected Muslim Youth, only to conclude ‘multiculturalism’ and its failures. This latter finding support even among the contributions too. However, fact that racism honed to a fine art, and nuanced to be expressed as ‘multiculturalism’ has never been even so much as hinted at. Fact that those mongrels believing in their racial purity ought to have their genetic patrimony examined and published for the benefit of us all (damn good laugh it would prove) has never even been threatened. Fact that the self appointed leaders of the minority communities for the sake of ease of control of these disparate and un-catered for populations, have been courted and bought off with beads, and mirrors would never make it out. Fact that the Zionist hegemony forcing the issues of veil, salwar kameez, and the horrendous dehumanisation of the quarter of population of the world never finds any pronouncements. Fact that our uncompetitive economic practices become unstuck, and hence the ‘six war Emily’ never can be whispered. But hey, multiculturalism is a failure, cuz we know only one culture is the right culture, all others can not amount to a hill of beans. Harrumph,,,,,, eyes, have it! right?

Finally, tomorrow would be another day, seeing as yet, those running on fear to keep ruling the roost another day, have not so far decreed that sun may be covered up by the turbans shot up into space. Meanwhile back at the ranch yea olde farts are coming out of the wood work to tell young Cameron to go back to yea olde days, where the leaders of the Conservative Party were racist cleaner persons; cleaning up the country from the little brown people, and hospitals from MRSA!!

PS. for all the bullies in the schools and workplaces; Stop bullying your victims, he/she may turn out to be a Prime Minister one day and start getting back at the whole bally planet, never mind your puny butts.

Whilst I enjoy Hemmingway as much as the next chap, I think that ‘stream of consciousness’ stuff needs, like the art of Picasso, to be the product of someone who understands the rules of their craft, and which ones they can break or bend, and the effect doing so will have.

Trying to read that post was a bit like watching The Blair Witch Project. I gave up half way through on both. Could the author please re-write it, using bullet points and punctuation?

Too right, Steve. And that’s without considering: “notwithstanding, the nostrum not working the day before, the new nostrum is proscribed anyway, albeit in new-speak, new location, and with the same telegenic backdrop.”

Hemmingway is not a stream of consciousness writer he is famous for short terse journalistic sentences . Joyce is the culprit . That’s a fate someone forgot for Sadaam reading Finnegan`s Wake. I kid you not death is preferable.

I love Picasso as well , the Cap may be onto something there.I am dubious about some of it though and appaled by most modern “conceptual art” Not all

There is a school of linguistic scholarship that , coming from Wittgenstein and the like, spurns clarity. It is fatuous to the letter ( often importng mathmatical concepts almost at random …..), but you would be amazed how much of this stuff there is .

I notice JT uses maths in a worryingly similiar way at hos worst moments.

Why is everyone trying to find hidden gems in this crap? Sorry Greg, but people who write like you simply cannot be bothered to express yourself in a way others might understand. If nothing else it is discourteous; you put us to a lot of effort and we are left none the wiser.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people — not those who fight and pay and die — only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

End quote

If you care to research the turn around in the fortunes of KBR (facing colossal Asbestos claims, almost bankrupt) bought out by Halliburton ( the sole uncontested contractor for logistic services to Pentagon in Iraq) charging $1800 dollars for a sack ( bin bag size) of washing soiled clothing, etc. of troops. Charging $2.7 million dollars for delivery of $270,000 worth of fuel, etc. ( http://tinyurl.com/ygatfy )

Why is everyone trying to find hidden gems in this crap? Sorry Greg, but people who write like you simply cannot be bothered to express yourself in a way others might understand. If nothing else it is discourteous; you put us to a lot of effort and we are left none the wiser.

Give me Idlex or Tayles any day.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Would gladly elaborate on the points still in need of further clarification.

==================================================================

newmania said:
November 21, 2006 8:43 PM | permalink

Hemmingway is ….. worst moments.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Transaction of ideas given the parameters of target domain of the ideas that lack any equilibrium, could be constructed as an exciting opportunity for a simulated annealing of the ideas in the rough and tumble of the ensuing competition. On the other hand this transaction could be misconstrued as a threat to status quo ante. However, articulation of these transactions ought to seek calibration, unless the ensuing farrago is the desired outcome.

Excellent article, but unfortuately as a resident of Northern Ireland I like so many others are at the mercy of the English electorate and have a deep and unnerving fear that not only will the thoroughly disturbing New Labour sect get in yet again but Reid will be top dog.
This man is an idiot driven by knee jerk reactionary politics and we shall ALL pay heavily through the lose of our liberties for his brand of neo-liberal marxism.
Please Boris expose this self righteous authoritarian THUG for what he is and help the U.K avoid a worldwide disaster.
Kudos
“The Blackguard”

And the Iraq war, which was an aggressive war, has produced the phenomenon of ‘Bush millionaires’. Most of them made their fortunes, as best I understand, by gaining no-bid contracts to work on Iraqi reconstruction, and, in the absence of any supervision, simply pocketing the money.

But this money was US government money, billions of it voted by the US Congress. So, as best I can make out, Bush millionaires have been making their fortunes largely at the expense of the American people, rather than the Iraqi people.

But is Emily another Bush millionaire? Some people are a bit puzzled where he got the money to buy a large property in London a few years back. But perhaps it was just an advance on his forthcoming US speaking tours, and his pending autobiography: “45 minutes.”

More dubious and selective Bush bashing I see. I think Idlex is right about the roots of war . I read a very convincing book about it showing that the actions of brigands and knights were not always so clearly defined. Privateers are good example of a midway point , or the Viking “Invasions” . Sadaam Hussein’s wars and the incursions of the Germans into Europe are obviously attempts to steal “lebensraum” . We clearly have to defend ourselves .
Our defence is bound up with alliances the most meaningful of which, by far , is that with the US . Suggestions for an alternative will be welcomed, if only to be scoffed at.
It is not possible to wage war or conduct foreign policy with one hand behind your back , her US is already severely constrained by the free press and democracy it has . I wonder if it is for this reason that America seems hypocritical , having to defend freedom by any means necessary but also standing for freedom.

The sneers of countries like France and to some extent this country are not always lovely to behold as our peace and security is guaranteed by America

“word salad” – I love it cap’n, very amusingly put and if y’all will forgive me I’m just catching up from Mel’s last post as I want to retain my meagre grip on reality, so if I’ve missed anything, just assume I was out getting a life and meeting someone tall, dark, handsome and utterly fascinating (which I was).

Newmania – it wasn’t Prezza. And how an intelligent being like yourself can come out with “our peace and security is guaranteed by America” is puzzling – can you substantiate that claim?

How about £5 billion of our tax money never mind the US tax payers $344,345,904,805? (who got to hoard the boxes of money that were found in Saddam’s palaces, and later flown out? What happened to the $10 billion dollars in the oil for food fund in UN?)

If the funds were to be diverted directly, then a case for fraud and misappropriation would have been made. Indirect money shuffling is a different story, however, there is the blood price that the poor victims pay.

Further, start checking out various aspects of the racket, and gradually you will see a pattern emerging.

PS. don’t waste time with; the pompous virtual incarnation of Hyacinth Bucket, the noisy one, and the oh so super ones. Get on with exploring the data on tap in the cyberspace. Unless you want to tune in to BBC, and drop out! (or even worse the sky news, or for torture there is always ‘fair and balanced’ Foxaganda )

idlex November 22, 2006 6:52
Something for you sink your teeth in. Also noting the following public domain data of the time, Saddam had 11 doubles! Saddam could leave Iraq, and the attack won’t take place. (notice any pattern)

Noting that as per public domain data established facts about Saddam; was initially helped by a CIA asset, and set in place, Saddam was encouraged to attack Iran, Saddam Was helped to attack Iran with Chemical Weapons, and Cluster bombs (Matrix Churchill, Scott enquiry), Saddam had access to Satellite Download link station built specifically in Baghdad, Saddam was later encouraged to attack Kuwait (Check out the congressional enquiry into April Glasspie), Saddam was trying to cut a deal and get out of Iraq prior to the latest attacks. The ‘surrender broker’, never managed to make it in time to Baghdad, because the Aircraft in Jordan had taken off early, and ……. , and ……….. included, the refusal of Al Jazeerah to interview the ‘surrender broker’.

A YEAR before the invasion of Iraq, the then Australian ambassador to the United Nations, John Dauth, confidentially told AWB’s former chairman Trevor Flugge the Howard Government would participate in military action with the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein, new AWB documents reveal.

AWB Board minutes show Mr Flugge told the AWB board on February 27, 2002, that Mr Dauth confided in him that he believed US military action to depose Saddam Hussein was inevitable and that the Australian Government would support and participate in such action, Fairfax newspapers report.

The documents, released at the Cole inquiry yesterday, undercut previous statements by Prime Minister John Howard that Australia did not agree to join the war before the UN debate in late 2002 and early 2003.

The conversation between Mr Dauth and Mr Flugge is reported to have taken place 13 months before the military action began.

Mr Dauth also predicted Iraq would invite UN weapons inspectors to return to the country to hold off any US military action for a year to 18 months.

The former UN ambassador also promised he would give Mr Flugge as much warning as possible about when the military action would begin, Fairfax reports.

“If the nuclear armed USA hadn’t joined in WW2 in Europe do you think Stalins army would have stopped at Berlin?”

With Rudolf Hess ‘dropping in’ on Churchill 2 weeks before operation Barbarossa kilcked off? Absolutely not. Churchill manouvred the US into joining WWII by ‘encouraging’ the 3rd Reich to invade the USSR and letting his 2 arch enemies tear each other apart, before his less than eager allies cleaned up the mess.

Cost Britain a fortune in loss of Imperial Preference and IP rights to the gas turbine & early computer, but saved the world from totalitarianism of one shade or another. The US certainly sat back and wrung as good a deal out of us as was possible before doing the neccessary. And who can blame ’em?